Joining the Federal Administrative Judiciary

Panelists: Hon. Joan Churchill, Hon. Harold Kullberg, Hon. Robert Lesnick,

Hon. Erin Wirth

Location of Federal Administrative Adjudicatory Positions

• The Administrative Conference of the United States undertook a project to map the contours of the federal administrative adjudicatory process. The study findings are available in a public data base which identifies adjudicatory positions across the federal government :

• (https://acus.law.stanford.edu/)

Hon. Robert LesnickHon. Erin Masson Wirth

United States Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ)

Application, Role and Regulations

• Application

• Examination

• Appointment

• Role

• Regulations

Outline

Process

Application

Examination

Register

Agency

Employment

• Initial Application

• On-line Component

• Proctored Component

• In-Person Component

Application

• License: Active or Good Standing to Practice Law

• Experience: 7 years

– Litigation

– Administrative

– Non-Qualifying

• Geographic Preference

Initial Application

• Qualifying litigation experience involves cases in which a complaint was filed with a court, or a charging document (e.g., indictment or information) was issued by a court, a grand jury, or appropriate military authority and includes:

– participating in settlement or plea negotiations in advance of trial;

– preparing for trial and/or participating in trial of cases;

– preparing opinions;

– hearing cases;

– participating in or conducting arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution process approved by the court; or

– participating in appeals related to the types of cases above.

Litigation Experience

• Qualifying administrative law experience involves cases in which a formal procedure was initiated by a governmental administrative body and includes:

– participating in settlement negotiations in advance of hearing cases;

– preparing for hearing and/or participating in trial of cases;

– preparing opinions;

– hearing cases;

– participating in or conducting arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution process approved by the administrative body; or

– participating in appeals related to the types of cases above.

Administrative Law Experience

• Experience involving cases with no formal hearing procedure and uncontested cases involving misdemeanors, probate, domestic relations, or tort matters is not qualifying. Listed below are some examples of types of positions which are not qualifying:

– Claims Reviewer

– Clerk of Court

– Conferee

– Contracting Officer

– Insurance Adjuster

– Moderator

– Officer of any court not of record

– Rating Specialist

– State Unemployment Insurance Supervisor

– Law Professor

Non-Qualifying Experience

• Situational Judgment Test

• Writing Sample

• Experience Assessment

On-line Component

• The SJT presents applicants with a set of work-related problems or critical situations and asks applicants to indicate which of the multiple-choice response options they would most likely and least likely take to handle the situations.

• The SJT is administered online, is timed, and involves text-based scenarios as well as video-based scenarios with closed captioning.

• Applicants may take as long as they wish to review the instructions but are given 75 minutes to respond to the SJT questions.

Situational Judgment Test

• The Writing Sample is an exercise in which applicants write a response to a pre-determined topic.

• Applicants type their writing sample responses online and the exercise is timed.

• Applicants may take as long as they wish to review the instructions but are given 35 minutes to prepare a response to the question.

Writing Sample

• The Experience Assessment includes multiple-choice and open-ended questions about work experience that is related to ALJ positions.

• Applicants select a multiple-choice response and write a narrative response, as appropriate, to indicate and document their experience associated with the targeted competency.

• The Experience Assessment is not timed.

Experience Assessment

• The purpose of the WD is to evaluate an applicant's ability to prepare a clear, concise, and well-reasoned legal decision of the type that one might be expected to write if employed as an ALJ.

• The WD is scheduled for 5 hours to allow time for instructions and other administrative processes, but actual testing time is 4 hours.

• The WD is conducted in a proctored environment using a laptop computer provided by OPM, and will be administered in one location in the Washington, DC area.

• If you do not receive the required minimum score on the WD, you will not receive a final numerical rating and will not be placed on the ALJ register.

Proctored Components:Written Demonstration (WD)

• The LBMT presents applicants with a set of scenarios and multiple-choice response options. Only one response option in each scenario is logically accurate, while the remaining options are logically inaccurate. Applicants are asked to indicate which one response option is logically accurate.

• The LBMT is conducted in a proctored environment and will be scheduled for 2½ hours to allow time for instructions, but actual testing time is approximately 2 hours.

• The LBMT will be administered in the Washington, DC area.

Proctored Component: Logic-Based Measurement Test (LBMT)

• The objective of the SI is to evaluate an applicant's responses to competency-based questions related to being an ALJ.

• A panel will conduct the interview and evaluate the responses provided by the applicant.

• The interview will last approximately one hour, but you will need to arrive early to allow time for instructions.

• The SI will be administered in the Washington, DC area.

In-person Component:Structured Interview (SI)

• Decision Making

• Judicial Analysis

• Judicial Decisiveness

• Judicial Management

• Judicial Temperament

• Litigation and Courtroom Competence

Competencies

• Interpersonal Skills

• Oral Communication

• Problem Solving

• Professionalism

• Reasoning

• Self-Management

• Writing

Appointment from the Register

• If you receive a NOR with a final numerical rating, your name will be placed on the ALJ register.

• The ALJ register is a list of candidates who are eligible for selection and is used to make referrals to agencies for employment consideration when they have entry level ALJ vacancies to fill.

• Names are referred in descending rank order, including veterans’ preference, based on the duty location of the position(s) to be filled and the geographical preference of candidates.

• It is the responsibility of the hiring agency to make selections from the list of candidates referred for employment consideration from among the highest three available names, taking into consideration veterans' preference and other civil service rules.

• If you are appointed to an ALJ position, you will be removed from the register and will no longer receive consideration.

• Set up an account on www.USAJOBS.gov today.

• Create an automated search, daily notifications.

• Search for Occupation Series: 0935 Administrative Law Judge.

• Remember your user ID and password for www.USAJOBS.gov and the primary email address. Your results will be sent to that email.

• Be sure to update your Federal Resume and save it to your account on the www.USAJOBS.gov site.

• IMPORTANT: Your resume must contain information required by the job opportunity announcement. Please review the "How to Apply" section when it is available very carefully.

From: https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/alj_recruit.html

Recommended steps

• ALJs conduct formal hearings involving cases where all interested parties are given advance notice of the hearing; an opportunity to submit facts, arguments, offers of settlement or proposals of adjustment; and an opportunity to be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel or other qualified representatives.

• ALJs rule on preliminary motions, conduct pre-hearing conferences, issue subpoenas, control hearings (which may include written and/or oral testimony and cross-examination), review briefs, and prepare and issue initial or recommended decisions, along with written findings of fact and conclusions of law therein.

• Oral or documentary evidence may be received, but irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence is excluded.

• Decisions are issued upon consideration of the whole record, or those parts of it cited by a party and supported by and in accord with reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.

Role

• APA/Judicial Independence

• Day to day functions at different agencies

• Financial Reporting

• Ethics

Regulations

A Code of Judicial Conduct

Within the ALJ System

Robert J. Lesnick, Chief Judge

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

Did you know that….

There is no official code of judicial conduct for Federal administrative law judges/

ALJs are not held to the same ethical code as trial judges/

But….

ALJs ≈ District Court Judges

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, ALJs are the

functional equivalent of district court judges

ALJs have an enormous effect on the parties that appear

before them

So how is it possible that ALJs do not have their own

ethical code?

The Civics Lesson: Executive Branch vs.

Judicial Branch

Historically, ALJs were considered

nonjudicial officers because they are

employees of the executive branch.

Their decisions may be overturned by

agency officials.

Since the executive branch agencies

control their employment, ALJs do not

have the independence of Article III or

state level judges.

Or do they???

ALJs and Trial Judges Have Similar Functions

They are all:

Finders of Fact

Impartial decision makers

Judges of issues, rules, evidence, and procedure

They also:

Directly affect the record

Administer oaths and affirmations

Issue subpoenas

Regulate the course of the hearing

And are:

Entitled to the same absolute immunity as other judges

So what ethical standards are ALJs held to?

Code of Conduct for United States (Article III) Judges

vs.

Standards of Conduct for Government Employees

and

The Hatch Act

The Hatch Act

All civilian federal executive branch employees are

covered by provisions of the Hatch Act

Federal employees are categorized as either 1)

restricted or 2) unrestricted under the Hatch Act

Most federal employees are classified as unrestricted

Restricted federal employees are prohibited from

engaging in partisan political management or political

campaigns

ALJs are classified as restricted federal employees.

Hatch Act Enforcement

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) enforces the Hatch

Act

After investigating an alleged Hatch Act violation, the

OSC may seek disciplinary action against the employee

before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)

Ethics rules for BCA JUDGEs

CBCA and ASBCA Judges are subject to:

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C.

App.

The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of

the Executive Branch, 5 CFR Part 2635, issued by

the Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

PSBCA Judges are subject to the U.S. Postal Service

ethics regulations which are substantively similar to the

OGE regulations.

ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct

State Bar ethics requirements

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

Financial Disclosure Report

• Filed Annually

• OGE Form 278e

Stop Trading on Congressional

Knowledge Act of 2012 (STOCK Act)

• Report as required under the STOCK Act

• OGE Form 278T

Rules of Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch

Employees

The US Office of Government Ethics (OGE) maintains

that only the Rules of Ethical Conduct for Executive

Branch Employees pertain to ALJs.

Hmmm….

≠

The problem with standards….

For judges as federal agency employees, these

standards are useful; however,

For judges as judges, they are insufficient and

occasionally problematic

Chief Judges and ALJ member associations have asked

Congress to impose the ABA Model Code of Judicial

Conduct on all Federal administrative law judges.

Benefits of an ALJ-Specific Code of Conduct

ALJs will immediately know what standards of conduct

are expected of them

It will abolish any public perception of bias in

administrative proceedings

It will provide uniformity of desired conduct of behavior

Which is more applicable to administrative law judges?

Model Code of Judicial Conduct vs. Standards of Ethical

Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch

Model Judicial Code

Uphold and promote the

independence, integrity, and

impartiality of the judiciary, and avoid

impropriety and the appearance of

impropriety.

Impartiality in performing official duties

Standards for Executive

Branch Employees

Canon 1 Subpart E

Model Judicial Code

A judge shall perform the duties of

judicial office impartially, competently,

and diligently.

Impartiality in performing official duties

Model Judicial Code

Standards for Executive

Branch Employees

Canon 2 Subpart E

A judge shall conduct the judge’s

personal and extrajudicial activities to

minimize the risk of conflict with the

obligations of judicial office

Impartiality in performing official duties

Personal and business

relationships

Outside activities

Model Judicial CodeStandards for Executive

Branch Employees

Canon 3 Subparts E & H

A judge or candidate for judicial office

shall not engage in political or

campaign activity that is inconsistent

with the integrity or impartiality of the

judiciary.

The Hatch Act addresses political

campaign activities pertaining to

government employees.

ALJs are classified as “further

restricted employees” and are

prohibited from engaging in partisan

political management or political

campaigns

Model Judicial CodeStandards for Executive

Branch Employees

Canon 4 The Hatch Act

Public Financial Disclosure

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as

amended, requires senior officials in the

executive, legislative and judicial branches to file

public reports of their finances as well as other

interests outside the Government.

The financial disclosure system serves to

prevent conflicts of interest and to identify

potential conflicts by providing for a systematic

review of the financial interests of both current

and prospective employees.

JOINING THE FEDERAL

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY

Presentation To: ABA Administrative Law SectionOn: October 19, 2017By: Immigration Judge Joan Churchill (Retired)

Variety of Federal Administrative Tribunals

Article I Courts such as the

Tax Court

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Military Courts

Boards of Contract Appeals

Immigration Courts

Agencies with Administrative Law Judges

etc

Selection Methods

Vary widely from

Presidential appointment

--need Senate confirmation

--don’t need Senate confirmation

Selection by Agency heads

Selection by Office of Personal Management

Focusing on Immigration Judges

Significant recruitment efforts are currently underway

Job posting September 25, 2017 for 19 positions

Closing date: October 16

More postings are likely in coming months

Organizational Structure

The Immigration Court is a quasi judicial administrative tribunal

housed in the

U.S. Department of Justice

in its Executive Office for Immigration Review [EOIR]

See https://www.justice.gov/eoir

Statutory Authority

The Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952 [I&N Act]

created the position of Immigration Judge [IJ] (Previously called Special Inquiry Officer) at

Sec. 242(b) of the I&N Act [8 U.S. Code 1252(b)].

Locations

• There are currently over 300 Immigration Judge positions

• In locations throughout the United States, stretching from Hawaii to Puerto Rico

Duties

Immigration Judges preside in trial level, formal, quasi-judicial hearings re

• Removal/Deportation from the USA,

• Rescission and

• Bond/Release from Custody.

Authority

Immigration Judges

• administer oaths

• Can question & cross examine witnesses (generally done by the attorney for the government)

• Make final decisions based solely on the evidence of record

Applications for Relief

Immigration Judges consider applications for relief from removal such as:

• Asylum/with holding of removal

• Adjustment of status

• Cancellation of Removal

• Voluntary departure

• Waivers

Appeals

Decisions of Immigration Judges may be appealed to:

1. The Board of Immigration Appeals

A quasi judicial tribunal in the U.S. Dept of Justice, also housed in EOIR

2. Then to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Circuit where the applicant resides

3. Then to the U.S. Supreme Court

Nature of the hearings

Hearings before Immigration Judges may be conducted in person, or by video.

Some hearings are in detention facilities.

Some hearings are conducted in detail locations which lack resident Immigration Judges.

How to Apply

Watch for job postings at

https://www.usajobs.gov/

Latest posting

https://www.usajobs.gov/

GetJob/ViewDetails/

480275400#

Job posting September 25, 2017

for 19 positions

Closing date: October 16

Requirements

• U.S. Citizen or national

• LL.B., LL.M, or a J.D. degree.

• active duly licensed member of the bar

• (7) years of experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or appealing formal hearings or trials involving litigation and/or administrative law at the Federal, State or local level.

Selection Factors”Quality Ranking Factors”

• Judicial temperament.

• Knowledge of immigration laws and procedures.

• Substantial litigation experience, preferably in a high volume context.

• Experience handling complex legal issues.

• Experience conducting administrative hearings.

• Knowledge of judicial practices and procedures.

Application process

Submission of Resume documenting 7 years of legal experience post bar admission

Writing sample

Interviews

Security clearance

ETHICS

Ethical rules

• Immigration Judges are subject to numerous ethical standards

• 5 Code of Federal Regulations 3801 &

• 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 45

• Department of Justice & EOIR rules

• State Bar rules where admitted to practice

• Judicial codes of conduct

See

Ethics & Professionalism Guide

for Immigration Judges

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/05/23/EthicsandProfessionalismGuideforIJs.pdf

BECOMING A BOARD OF

CONTRACT APPEALS JUDGE

Judge Harold C. “Chuck” Kullberg

United States Civilian Board of Contract Appeals

1800 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

DISCLAIMER

The views and opinions of this panelist are his

own and do not necessarily reflect those of the

Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, General

Services Administration, or the United States

Government.

A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF BOARDS OF

CONTRACT APPEALS

Boards or commissions to resolve contract

disputes were first established to meet

temporary needs during times of war.

The establishment of permanent boards of

contract appeals for the armed services and

civilian agencies began after World War II.

CONTRACT DISPUTES ACT OF 1978

(CDA)

41 U.S.C. § 7101-7109

Established the procedures for

resolving contract disputes within the

various executive agencies.

Provided for the establishment of

boards of contract appeals and the

appointment of board judges.

AUTHORITY OF THE BOARDS OF CONTRACT

APPEALS

Grant same relief in CDA appeals as that available before the Federal Claims Court.

Decisions are final against both contractors and the Government but may be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

THE BOARDS OF CONTRACT APPEALS

The three active boards established under the

CDA include the Armed Services Board of Contract

Appeals, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals,

and the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals.

Other boards with similar functions in the

Washington, DC area include the Government

Accountability Office Contract Appeals Board and

the District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board.

CASES THE CBCA HEARS IN ADDITION TO CDA

APPEALS

In addition to contract disputes, the CBCA hears and decides various other classes of cases.

These include:

• Cases arising under the Indian Self-Determination Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 450j-1(f), 450m-1(d);

• Disputes between insurance companies and the Department of Agriculture's Risk Management

Agency involving actions of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation under 7 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et

seq.;

• Claims by federal employees under 31 U.S.C. § 3702 for reimbursement of expenses incurred

while on official temporary duty travel or in connection with relocation to a new duty station;

• Claims by carriers or freight forwarders under 31 U.S.C. § 3726(i)(1) involving actions of the

General Services Administration regarding payment for transportation services;

• Applications by prevailing private parties for recovery of litigation and other costs under the

Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504; and

• Requests for arbitration under section 601 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of

2009, Public Law 111-5, and section 565 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-6, to resolve disputes between applicants and the

Federal Emergency Management Agency as to funding for public assistance grant applications

arising from damages caused by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Gustav.

• (From the CBCA website)

RESPONSIBILITIES OF A BCA JUDGE

Manage a docket of CDA appeals and other cases within the Board’s jurisdiction.

Preside over hearings.

Confer with parties and resolve procedural issues such as disputes regarding discovery.

Issue orders.

Decide cases in a timely manner once the record is closed.

Work with other judges on those cases assigned to a panel.

Conduct mediations and assist parties in reaching settlement through an alternative dispute resolution proceeding.

CDA REQUIREMENT FOR SELECTION

OF BCA JUDGES

“members must have had

at least 5 years of

experience in public

contract law.”

HOW TO APPLY

Each Board has its own process for appointing

new judges.

Check for vacancy announcements.

Keep track of the CDA cases that you have

tried.

Always have a current resume and more than

one writing sample.

The process of becoming a board judge can be

lengthy. Be patient.

ETHICS RULES FOR BCA JUDGES

CBCA and ASBCA Judges are subject to:

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App.

The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the

Executive Branch, 5 CFR Part 2635, issued by the

Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

PSBCA Judges are subject to the U.S. Postal Service ethics

regulations which are substantively similar to the OGE

regulations.

ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct

State Bar ethics requirements

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

Financial Disclosure Report

• Filed Annually

• OGE Form 278e

Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act

of 2012 (STOCK Act)

• Report as required under the STOCK Act

• OGE Form 278T

SOME PARTING THOUGHTS

A former BCA judge once characterized the

solitary nature of his work as “monastic.”

LINKS

Civilian Board of Contract Appeals http://www.cbca.gsa.gov/

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals http://www.asbca.mil/

Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/judicial/board-contract-appeals-decisions/welcome.htm

GAO Contract Appeals Board https://www.gao.gov/legal/contract-appeals-board/aboutDC Contract Appeals Board https://cab.dc.gov/

These links provide information about each board, addresses, telephone numbers, rules, and past decisions.

1

Becoming a United States Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Erin Masson Wirth Should you consider becoming a United States Administrative Law Judge?

OVERVIEW

The United States Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) position, originally called a hearing examiner, was created by the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946 to ensure fairness in administrative proceedings before federal government agencies.

Administrative Law Judges serve as independent and impartial triers of fact in proceedings requiring a decision on the record after the opportunity for a hearing. The Supreme Court explained:

[F]ederal administrative law requires that agency adjudication contain many of the same safeguards as are available in the judicial process. The proceedings are adversary in nature. They are conducted before a trier of fact insulated from political influence. A party is entitled to present his case by oral or documentary evidence, and the transcript of testimony and exhibits

2

together with the pleadings constitutes the exclusive record for decision. The parties are entitled to know the findings and conclusions on all of the issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record.

Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, 513 (1978) (citations omitted).

Administrative Law Judges adjudicate cases for a wide variety of federal agencies. Currently, there are over 1,700 Administrative Law Judges assigned to 30 federal agencies. Cases may involve federal laws and regulations in such areas as admiralty, advertising, antitrust, banking, communications, energy, environmental protection, food and drugs, health and safety, housing, international trade, labor management relations, securities and commodities markets, and social security disability and other benefits claims.

Administrative Law Judges are sometimes called “Article I Judges” because their legitimacy arises under the executive branch powers set out in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, rather than the judicial branch powers set out in Article III.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS The Supreme Court has stated that certain “administrative

proceedings bear a remarkably strong resemblance to civil litigation in federal courts.” Federal Maritime Commission v. S.C. State Ports Authority, 535 U.S. 743, 757 (2002).

There can be little doubt that the role of the modern federal hearing examiner or administrative law judge within this framework is “functionally comparable” to that of a judge. His powers are often, if not generally, comparable to those of a trial judge: He may issue subpoenas, rule on proffers of evidence, regulate the course of the hearing, and make or recommend decisions. More importantly, the process of agency adjudication is currently structured so as to assure that the hearing examiner exercises his independent judgment on the evidence before him, free from pressures by the parties or other officials within the agency.

3

Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 513 (1978) (citations omitted).

Administrative Law Judges conduct formal hearings involving cases where all interested parties are given advance notice of the hearing; an opportunity to submit facts, arguments, offers of settlement or proposals of adjustment; and an opportunity to be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel or other qualified representatives. Administrative Law Judges administer oaths and affirmations, issue subpoenas, rule on preliminary motions, conduct pre-hearing and settlement conferences, conduct hearings with cross-examination, review briefs, and prepare and issue initial decisions, along with written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Administrative Law Judges are guaranteed decisional independence to ensure due process. By statute, Administrative Law Judges may be discharged only for good cause and they must be free from supervision or direction by executive branch agents engaged in investigative or prosecutorial functions. Ex parte communications, performance ratings, and bonuses are forbidden.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has oversight responsibility for Administrative Law Judge appointment and pay. OPM employs a rigorous process to screen, qualify, and select experienced attorney applicants for placement on a register of those eligible for appointment by agencies having a need for Administrative Law Judges. The selection and appointment of Administrative Law Judges is entirely merit based.

Administrative Law Judges are not Administrative Judges. Administrative Judges adjudicate cases that do not require an Administrative Law Judge and may review Administrative Law Judge decisions. The similarity of both names and responsibilities leads to confusion between them. The primary difference is that Administrative Judges serve at the will of and under supervision of the agencies while Administrative Law Judges have decisional independence guaranteed by the Administrative Procedure Act.

4

TYPES OF CASES HEARD BY ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

The agency employing the largest number of Administrative Law Judges is the Social Security Administration, with over 1,400. Other agencies with large numbers of Administrative Law Judges include the Department of Health and Human Services/Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals, with 90; Department of Labor, with 40; and, the National Labor Relations Board, with 35. The remaining Administrative Law Judges are employed in agencies with fewer than 20 Judges.

Administrative Law Judges try cases falling into three broad categories: entitlement, regulatory, and enforcement cases. Entitlement cases involve adjudication of claims for benefits, for example, disability benefits under the Social Security Act, and workers’ compensation benefits under the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. Regulatory cases, such as those of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, involve economic regulation of rates and services provided by the energy industry. Enforcement cases involve adjudication of cases brought by various federal agencies against individuals or companies to enforce federal laws and regulations, such as: mine safety cases heard by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission; animal welfare cases heard by the Department of Agriculture; and, housing discrimination cases, heard by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The day to day experience of Administrative Law Judges assigned to these different agencies are as varied as imaginable. Each agency has its own culture, rules and regulations, judicial structures, histories, and limitations. A typical Social Security disability hearing may last an hour or two, while hearings at other agencies may last days or weeks. Rules at some agencies permit discovery and Judges handle many pre-hearing motions, while at other agencies, discovery is limited or not permitted. The type of evidence reviewed ranges from medical reports to economic expert testimony.

The Social Security Administration has hearing offices spread throughout the country, including one or more in every

5

state. Social Security disability hearings are non-adversarial with testimony from the claimant and expert witnesses but without a representative for the government. Typically, Social Security Administrative Law Judges focus on hearing cases and making decisions, while attorney-advisors draft the decisions based on the Judge’s instructions. Many Social Security Administrative Law Judges hear and decide 50 or more cases per month, as they are encouraged to do because of the high volume of applicants seeking disability benefits. Although the Social Security Administration has been at the forefront of utilizing video hearings, travel may be required to hear cases for claimants who decline or are not able to utilize video hearings.

Administrative Law Judges issue initial decisions which become final unless appealed. The appeals may be to Commissioners or employees appointed by the agency and often the appeal is de novo. Generally, the federal appellate courts may review a final agency decision. Social Security disability decisions are appealable to an appeals council, which consists of Administrative Judges selected and appointed by the agency. Those decisions are appealable to federal district court. A few Administrative Law Judges issue final decisions that are not subject to review.

Although all Administrative Law Judges are employed by specific agencies, with the permission of OPM, they may hear cases for other agencies by interagency agreement as caseloads require.

If you are interested in learning more about the particular types of cases heard at different agencies, there is a lot of information available on the internet. Many agencies have an Office of Administrative Law Judges with a website which publishes recent decisions. In addition, agency rules and journal or law review articles can provide insights into a particular area of law. As with any employment prospect, it pays to do your homework.

6

QUALIFICATIONS The Office of Personnel Management reopens the

Administrative Law Judge examination to the public on a periodic basis, as the need arises. When OPM reopens the examination, a notice will be posted on OPM’s USAJOBS website, and it is suggested that you register for daily notification of relevant openings. OPM may go a year or longer between openings and may only leave the position open for a short period of time. It is helpful to have given some thought to your application ahead of time.

According to OPM, after the ALJ examination is opened, applicants who successfully complete all elements of the examination and receive a final numerical rating have their names and ratings placed on the ALJ register. The ALJ register is used as the source of names to make referrals to agencies for employment consideration when there are vacancies to fill. Names are referred in numerical score order, based on the duty location, number of positions to be filled, and the geographical preferences of applicants. Agencies make selections from the list of candidates referred for employment consideration from among the highest three available names.

OPM also administers the ALJ examination on a quarterly basis to 10-point preference eligible veterans who meet the regulatory requirement and apply for the closed ALJ examination.

When first applying to become an Administrative Law Judge, candidates must indicate their geographic preference. Not surprisingly, Washington, DC, and other popular cities have limited openings. Candidates who are flexible can indicate that they are willing to work anywhere, but they should be prepared to move to a new location with only a few weeks or months notice. Although transfers between locations occur, they may take a number of years.

The minimum requirements for an Administrative Law Judge position have not changed for many decades. The applicant must demonstrate: an active law license in good standing; seven years of qualifying experience; and, sufficient

7

score on an examination. It is advisable to maintain an active law license where

possible, although judicial status is acceptable in lieu of “active” status in states that prohibit sitting Judges from maintaining “active” status to practice law. Being in “good standing” is acceptable in lieu of “active” status in states where the licensing authority considers “good standing” as having a current license to practice law.

The definition of qualifying experience shifts but has consistently included litigation. Litigation experience may include alternative dispute resolution and appellate work. In addition, administrative litigation under a formal procedure may qualify. Uncontested cases with no formal hearing procedures do not count as qualifying experience to meet the seven year requirement. Previously, demonstration of the seven years of experience required summaries of ten significant cases including references from adversaries, judges, or others affiliated with the cases. Some suggest we should return to that system.

EXAMINATION OPM’s application process has evolved over time.

Applicants are encouraged to read OPM’s application materials to confirm current requirements and to follow those requirements very carefully. The process is unique and lengthy – it can take a number of years to be hired.

OPM utilizes an occupational analysis to identify key competencies necessary to serve as an Administrative Law Judge. This occupational analysis is updated from time to time to ensure that the examination tests for knowledge, skills, and abilities appropriate for the position.

The current examination looks for the following competencies: (1) decision making; (2) interpersonal skills; (3) judicial analysis; (4) judicial decisiveness; (5) judicial management; (6) judicial temperament; (7) litigation and courtroom competence; (8) oral communication; (9) problem solving; (10) professionalism; (11) reasoning; (12) self-management; and, (13) writing.

8

Recently, an on-line component was added to the examination process. This stage of the examination includes a timed situational judgement test, a timed writing sample, and an untimed experience assessment. Applicants are emailed information about this component and provided a window in which to complete the on-line portion. If scores are sufficient, the applicant is invited to the proctored portions of the examination.

A four hour written examination and structured interview have been part of the examination for many years. Recently, a short logic based measurement test was added. These in-person components are frequently conducted in Washington, DC, over two days, although in the past, it was offered in other cities. Applicants are not compensated for their time or travel to participate in the examination.

The examination is graded on a strict and confidential formula, and the applicant is given a final score. OPM works to make all testing and grading as objective and fair as possible. Nevertheless, an appeal process is provided, again with strict processing requirements.

Meeting an established minimum score permits the applicant to be placed on the register from which individual agencies may hire. Generally speaking, an agency must hire one of the top three highest scoring applicants interested in that geographical location.

The vast majority of Administrative Law Judges are hired by Social Security. Agencies with a vacancy may, with permission of OPM, hire Administrative Law Judges from other agencies. Many Judges stay with the Social Security Administration, in part because offices are located throughout the country. Competition to transfer to smaller agencies can be stiff as there are not many openings. Significant litigation experience provides the most useful background and enhances an application.

9

PAY AND BENEFITS Administrative Law Judges are paid on the AL scale and

OPM maintains a list of the basic and locality rates of pay. Pay is capped at Level III of the executive schedule. Although Administrative Law Judges are entitled to receive locality payments under 5 U.S.C. § 5304, since 1993, the pay cap has operated to compress and gradually eliminate locality pay, except for Administrative Law Judges with the least number of years of experience. It is recommended that the pay cap be removing or adjusted to relieve this compression.

In addition, Administrative Law Judges accrue leave under the same formula as new federal employees, which is significantly less than the leave granted to new Senior Executive Service and other senior government officials. These leave provisions may serve as a disincentive for experienced private practice attorneys without prior federal government experience to join the Administrative Law Judges ranks.

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference (FALJC) Founded on February 6, 1947, the Federal Administrative

Law Judges Conference (FALJC) is a voluntary professional association, organized for the purpose of improving the administrative judicial process, presenting educational programs to enhance the judicial skills of Administrative Law Judges, and representing the concerns of all United States Administrative Law Judges in matters affecting the federal administrative judiciary.

FALJC is the only organization that speaks for the entire spectrum of federal Administrative Law Judges. Over the years, the Conference has taken leadership roles in preserving the decisional independence of Administrative Law Judges, supporting measures enhancing due process of law in administrative judicial proceedings, and in supporting improvements in the fairness of the administrative judicial process by supporting legislation that serves two goals: enhancing the transparency of the administrative judicial process and the public’s perception of its fairness. FALJC has

10

steadfastly maintained that there can be no due process of law for the litigants—both private citizens and the United States Government—without an independent administrative judiciary.

FALJC has been in the forefront on core issues of importance to the federal administrative judiciary, including maintaining the integrity of the merit selection process and preserving judicial independence. FALJC has also highlighted the need to address leave disparities and pay compression, eligibility qualifications, and the need for an independent federal administrative judiciary to employ and supervise Administrative Law Judges. FALJC tracks the latest developments for federal Administrative Law Judges, including legislative activity, and makes this information available on its website and at its annual conference.

Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ) The Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ) is

the union representing Social Security Administrative Law Judges. AALJ was founded as a professional association in 1971. In 1999, AALJ affiliated with the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO. According to their website, more than 80 percent of Social Security Administration Judges are active members of AALJ. AALJ’s goals are to defend judicial independence and due process during administrative hearings, and advance professionalism of Administrative Law Judges.

WHY I ENJOY BEING AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

As a military spouse who moves frequently, I’ve had the opportunity to practice law around the country and work in a wide variety of settings. Frequently, I find myself drawn to public service. I enjoy being able to focus on legal issues as opposed to client development. Administrative Law Judges are able to rule on cases without being limited by client’s wishes or political considerations. And, although the subject matter has differed greatly in the five agencies where I have worked, the commitment to fair and impartial hearings has remained consistent.

11

Throughout my career I have written and spoken about administrative law. There seems to be a steady stream of interesting and important issues that arise in the administrative context. In addition, many of these issues have practical implications on the day-to-day lives of fellow Americans. It has certainly been a fascinating and rewarding field of study.

As a past President of the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference, I observed that Administrative Law Judges must work independently and be decisive. Attorneys who enjoy socializing or struggle to make decisions may want to consider whether this is the right position for them. Although Administrative Law Judges work with staff and run ideas past other Administrative Law Judges, they are limited in who they can talk to by ex parte rules, and are ultimately solely responsible for their decisions.

Fair and impartial Administrative Law Judges are central to our system of justice. We are responsible for deciding matters involving millions of dollars of taxpayer funding, affecting thousands of American corporations and their employees, and impacting our nation’s economy in ways small and large. If you are committed to public service, demonstrate strong litigation skills, and have the patience to complete the complex examination process, then you should consider becoming a United States Administrative Law Judge.

1

Job Title: Administrative Law Judge Examination

Job Announcement Number: ALJ2017-847661

HOW TO APPLY Important Information Regarding How To Apply

• All applicants must apply online via the USAJOBS "Apply Online" button. Application status is only available if you submit your application through USAJOBS using the "Apply Online" button. Tracking your application is not possible if your application has been posted through any other job application method outside of your USAJOBS account.

• Application Manager has a timeout feature for security purposes that will log a user out of the

system after a certain period of inactivity. To preserve your work in Application Manager, it is very important that you use the SAVE button approximately every 10 minutes. The system also saves your work every time you click the NEXT button. If you do not save your work and the system times you out, you will lose any information entered since your last use of SAVE/NEXT and you will have to log back in to your USAJOBS Application Manager account. You will see a pop up warning message asking if you need more time before the timeout occurs.

• If you are not currently on the ALJ register and you previously applied to the Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) Job Opportunity Announcement you may be able to see your previous application information and documents for this announcement. You may update any document from your previous application to be part of your 2017 application. Please note that this update process is only one step towards submitting your 2017 application. If you only update your previous application and save those changes, you will not be considered by OPM to have applied for the 2017 examination. In order for your new information to be processed and included as part of your 2017 application, you must click on the “Submit My Answers” button. Your new Assessment Questionnaire responses will not be updated and your 2017 application will not have been submitted unless you click on the “Submit My Answers” button. After you have successfully submitted your Assessment Questionnaire responses, you will be sent a system generated email from USA Staffing® acknowledging receipt of your submission.

• The following restrictions apply to files uploaded as part of this application process: o File format must be in JPG, PDF, TXT, RTF, DOC, DOCX or WPD; o File size must not exceed three (3) megabytes; and o File(s) must not include macros or scripts of any kind. • If you are currently on the ALJ register and only wish to provide an updated résumé and/or

Optional Listing of Significant Litigation and/or Administrative Law Cases, you must send the updated document(s) as an attachment to aljapplication@opm.gov. The Subject Line of your message should state: “2017 ALJ Exam, Updated Documents”. Your email/attachments must be submitted during the ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement open period. Information received after the filing period will not be uploaded to your application record.

• If you fail to respond or if you answer "No" to either Question 1 or 2 in the Assessment

Questionnaire section or if you do not provide sufficient information to show that you pass the preliminary qualifications screening, you will be rated as "ineligible." We will not request, accept,

2

or consider any additional information and/or clarification beyond what you provide in the text boxes, including any information provided in a resume or other attachments.

• When answering Question 1 of the Assessment Questionnaire, you must quantify the time associated with your claimed experience with the specific start date (month/year) to the specific end date (month/year), such as May 2006 – December 2006. Experience indicated as “year to year,” “since year,” “approximately” or “between” dates is not quantifiable and will not be considered in the evaluation of the experience requirements. Refer to Question 1 of the Assessment Questionnaire for additional instructions.

• When answering Question 2 of the Assessment Questionnaire, please provide the bar license

identifier (e.g., number, registration, etc.) in each jurisdiction in which you are currently licensed to practice law. If the jurisdiction does not issue a bar license identifier, please state so. Refer to Question 2 of the Assessment Questionnaire for additional instructions and requirements.

• Changes to your applicant record, assessment items in the Assessment Questionnaire, résumé, and

your list of significant cases will not be accepted after the ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement closes, although changes to non-assessment items (such as contact information) can be made by sending an email with the updated information to aljapplication@opm.gov.

• An application is considered complete when the Assessment Questionnaire and résumé are

submitted within the filing period described in the "How to Apply" section. Submission of the Listing of Significant Litigations and/or Administrative Law Cases is optional.

• Extraneous documents will not be considered. • It is important that you make and maintain a copy of your ALJ Assessment Questionnaire for your

personal records. Once you have submitted your online application package, (i.e., Assessment Questionnaire, résumé, supporting documents, etc.), OPM is not responsible for and does not provide copies of the application package to the applicant due to system retrieval restrictions. ALJ applications and associated documents that you submit through your USAJOBS account will be deleted by USAJOBS 36 months after your last ALJ application date.

• It is important to notify OPM about your availability and changes to your contact information during

the examination process and while you are on the register. • OPM is not responsible for an applicant's non-receipt of official notifications due to outdated or

inaccurate contact information concerning the applicant (i.e., email address), spam blockers or other email filters.

• Applicants should take proper steps to allow official notifications to be received from usastaffingoffice@opm.gov, assessments@usahire.opm.gov, aljapplication@opm.gov, support@panpowered.com.

1

Job Title: Administrative Law Judge Examination

Job Announcement Number: ALJ2017-847661

HOW YOU WILL BE EVALUATED Basis for Rating: After you submit a complete online Application Package and you have cleared the preliminary qualifications screening, you will receive information and an internet link via email announcing the upcoming time period in which you must complete the Situational Judgment Test (SJT), Writing Sample, and Experience Assessment online. If you do not complete the SJT, Writing Sample, and Experience Assessment in the required time period, a Notice of Results (NOR) will be issued to you indicating a rating of "ineligible" and no further action will be taken on your application. See the “Appeals Process” section below. Online Component: Situational Judgment Test (SJT), Writing Sample, and Experience Assessment Section 1: SJT - The SJT presents applicants with a set of work-related problems or critical situations and asks applicants to indicate which of the multiple-choice response options they would most likely and least likely take to handle the situations. The SJT is administered online, is timed, and involves text-based scenarios as well as video-based scenarios with closed captioning. Applicants may take as long as they wish to review the instructions but are given 75 minutes to respond to the SJT questions. Section 2: Writing Sample - The Writing Sample is an exercise in which applicants write a response to a pre-determined topic. Applicants type their writing sample responses online and the exercise is timed. Applicants may take as long as they wish to review the instructions but are given 35 minutes to prepare a response to the question. Section 3: Experience Assessment - The Experience Assessment includes multiple-choice and open-ended questions about work experience that is related to ALJ positions. Applicants select a multiple-choice response and write a narrative response, as appropriate, to indicate and document their experience associated with the targeted competency. The Experience Assessment is not timed. Applicants who are invited to participate in the SJT, Writing Sample, and Experience Assessment will receive an advance email with specific instructions for completing these assessments and details about computer system requirements. After you have submitted your responses to the online assessments (i.e., SJT, Writing Sample, and Experience Assessment), you will not be allowed to make changes to your submission. If the score for your performance on the SJT, Writing Sample, and Experience Assessment is within the range for the higher-scored sub-group of all the eligible applicants, you will be

2

invited to participate in the Written Demonstration, Logic-Based Measurement Test, and Structured Interview. You will be notified via email regarding when and where to report for the Written Demonstration, Logic-Based Measurement Test, and for the Structured Interview. If the score for your performance on the SJT, Writing Sample, and Experience Assessment is not within the range for the higher-scored sub-group of all the eligible applicants, you will be notified via email that you will no longer be considered for this current ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement. You will not be invited to participate in the Written Demonstration, Logic-Based Measurement Test, and the Structured Interview. NOTE: In determining the SJT, Writing Sample, and Experience Assessment score, veterans' preference points will be applied to the scores of applicants who are entitled to such points and have submitted the required documentation. For applicants who successfully complete the remaining components of the examination, preference points will then be withdrawn from the SJT, Writing Sample, and Experience Assessment score, so that veterans' preference points, when applied to the applicant's final score for the entire examination, will be counted only once. Proctored Component: Written Demonstration (WD) and Logic-Based Measurement Test (LBMT). If you are invited to participate in the WD and LBMT, this component of the examination will be administered to you in a proctored environment in two separate sessions on one day, unless informed otherwise. Section 1: WD - The purpose of the WD is to evaluate an applicant's ability to prepare a clear, concise, and well-reasoned legal decision of the type that one might be expected to write if employed as an ALJ. The WD is scheduled for 5 hours to allow time for instructions and other administrative processes, but actual testing time is 4 hours. The WD is conducted in a proctored environment using a laptop computer provided by OPM, and will be administered in one location in the Washington, DC area. If you do not receive the required minimum score on the WD, you will not receive a final numerical rating and will not be placed on the ALJ register. Section 2: LBMT - The LBMT presents applicants with a set of scenarios and multiple-choice response options. Only one response option in each scenario is logically accurate, while the remaining options are logically inaccurate. Applicants are asked to indicate which one response option is logically accurate. OPM will provide writing utensils and a scantron form to document your answers. The LBMT is conducted in a proctored environment and will be scheduled for 2½ hours to allow time for instructions, but actual testing time is approximately 2 hours. The LBMT will be administered in one location in the Washington, DC area. You must complete the WD and LBMT before participating in the Structured Interview. In-person Component: Structured Interview (SI). If you are invited to participate in

3

the SI, this part of the examination will be administered in an in-person panel interview environment. SI - The objective of the SI is to evaluate an applicant's responses to competency-based questions related to being an ALJ. A panel will conduct the interview and evaluate the responses provided by the applicant. The interview will last approximately one hour, but you will need to arrive early to allow time for instructions. The SI will be administered in one location in the Washington, DC area. If you do not receive the required minimum score on the SI, you will not receive a final numerical rating and will not be placed on the ALJ register.

NOTES:

• Applicant Expenses: Travel, lodging and other expenses in association with the ALJ examination are the responsibility of the applicant.

• Reasonable Accommodations

o ALJ Examination Components: Refer to the Assessment Questionnaire. All

requests must be approved prior to the start of the particular examination

component.

o In-person Component: Electronic timing devices (i.e., timer on cell phone,

etc.) must be pre-approved. OPM reserves the right to inspect the electronic

timing device immediately before the component begins and immediately after

the component ends or to provide the applicant with an alternative timing device.

• Electronic Devices: Use of electronic devices (e.g. cell phones, watches, etc.), connected to the internet is prohibited while participating in the ALJ examination.

• Confidentiality Agreement: If you sign a confidentiality agreement for an examination component, you are bound by the conditions of the agreement and are prohibited from discussing, publishing, or sharing the test questions or test materials with others, regardless of whether or not the others are applicants for the ALJ examination. Violating the terms of the agreement will disqualify you from further

participation in the ALJ examination process or placement on the ALJ register of eligibles.

• Inclement Weather During Proctored and In-Person Components: Information regarding the inclement weather policy for the Proctored Component (WD/LBMT) and In-Person Component (SI) of the ALJ examination is posted on the OPM ALJ webpage at: https://www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/administrative-law-judges/#url=Inclement-Weather. Applicants must follow the instructions described in the notice.

4

Final Numerical Rating: Applicants who complete all portions of the assessment process and achieve the minimum required (passing) score on both the WD and SI will be issued a final numerical rating on a scale of 1 – 100. The rating will be based on the scores assigned for the SJT/Writing Sample/Experience Assessment, the WD/LBMT, and the SI components of the examination with a maximum possible total score of 100, excluding veterans' preference. If you do not claim veterans' preference, this earned rating will be your final numerical rating. If you are eligible for veterans' preference (other than on the basis of sole survivorship, as described below) and have submitted the required documentation, 5 or 10 points, as appropriate, will be added to your total earned rating to determine your final numerical rating. Your official Notice of Results and a notice describing your appeal rights will be issued after OPM completes the administration of the ALJ examination for the entire group of applicants that participated in the examination. Applicants also can check the ALJ page on OPM’s website https://www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/administrative-law-judges/ for information regarding when examination related notices have been released. Appeals Process:

An ALJ Appeals Panel (Panel) will be convened to adjudicate preliminary qualification appeals before all other ALJ assessment appeals.

All other ALJ assessment appeals (including appeals from ratings indicating the applicant was determined to be 'ineligible' at any stage of the ALJ assessment process, after the preliminary qualifications process) will be adjudicated after all final numerical ratings have been assigned. The Panel will adjudicate such appeals from the following categories of applicants who believe their ratings were assigned in error:

1. An applicant who received a NOR indicating that his/her SJT, Writing Sample (WS), and Experience Assessment (EA) score was not within the range for the higher-scored sub-group of all the eligible applicants and, therefore, did not receive further consideration for this current ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement.

2. An applicant who did not receive a minimum required score on the WD and/or SI, did not receive a final numerical rating, and was not placed on the ALJ register.

3. An applicant who participated in the SJT, WS and EA, the WD/LBMT, and SI components and after further review of his/her bar status does not satisfy the licensure requirement.

4. An applicant who received a NOR with a final numerical rating, for appeal of the entire examination.

5

The Panel has the authority to affirm, raise, or lower the rating; change a rating from eligible to ineligible and remove an applicant from the register; or remand for further development. An appeal must be filed by email within 30 calendar days from the date of the NOR. We will not accept appeals or clarifying appeals information filed past the 30 calendar day deadline. Appeals are adjudicated based on the record. OPM may obtain confirming or clarifying information from state bar licensing agencies and other official repositories. The decision of the Appeals Panel is final, and exhausts further administrative appeal rights. Additional details regarding the appeal process will be provided after the NORs have been issued to all applicants. NOTE: If you receive a final numerical rating, and your name is placed on the ALJ register, and you appeal your numerical rating, your name will remain on the register, associated with your original score of record while the appeal is being processed. If, however, you are selected for an ALJ position, your name will be removed from the register and your pending appeal will be cancelled. Questions regarding the situations below are not subject to the ALJ Appeals Panel adjudication process. Instead, such inquiries are handled through separate administrative review procedures and must be sent to aljapplication@opm.gov.

1. Applicants who did not attend or complete the WD/LBMT or SI Components. 2. Applicants who voluntarily withdrew their application from consideration from the ALJ

examination. 3. Denial of a reasonable accommodations request. 4. Veterans’ preference adjudication. 5. Applicants who received a NOR indicating suspension from the ALJ register for failure

to continuously possess a license to practice law while on the ALJ competitive register and during the selection process or any appeal review.

Retaking the ALJ Examination: You may retake the ALJ examination when the examination is open to the receipt of new applications if:

• You received a NOR indicating any "ineligible" rating at any stage of the ALJ examination assessment process

• You received a final numerical rating before June 2017.

In any of the above situations, you are required to retake all parts of the examination. Please note that once you start retaking the examination, in order to receive a new final numerical rating and remain on the register, you must successfully complete all

6

components of the examination. Your most recent rating will become your new rating of record. This new rating can be higher than, the same as, or lower than the score you received previously, or it can be an ineligible rating. NOTE: If you reapply for the examination while you have an appeal pending, the reapplication will automatically terminate the appeal. If you have already reapplied for a new iteration of the examination, OPM will not process any subsequent attempt to appeal from an earlier NOR. If you are a 10-point veterans' preference eligible, you have the right to reopen the ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement at any time after it closes, pursuant to 5 CFR 332.311, to participate in a quarterly examination. You have this right even if you have received a final numerical rating and your name has been placed on the register. You will, however, be bound by the result of retaking the examination. In other words, once you start retaking the examination, in order to receive a new final numerical rating and remain on the register, you must successfully complete all components of the examination. Your most recent rating will become your new rating of record. This new rating can be higher than, the same as, or lower than the score you received previously, or it can be an ineligible rating. Receiving Employment Consideration: If you receive a NOR with a final numerical rating, your name will be placed on the ALJ register. The ALJ register is a list of candidates who are eligible for selection and is used to make referrals to agencies for employment consideration when they have entry level ALJ vacancies to fill. Names are referred in descending rank order, including veterans’ preference, based on the duty location of the position(s) to be filled and the geographical preference of candidates. It is the responsibility of the hiring agency to make selections from the list of candidates referred for employment consideration from among the highest three available names, taking into consideration veterans' preference and other civil service rules. If you are appointed to an ALJ position, you will be removed from the register and will no longer receive consideration. By submitting an ALJ application, you are expressing your interest in and availability for ALJ employment.

• Declination of Job Offers: If you decline two (2) job offers you will be suspended from the ALJ register for a period of one (1) year or until the register is terminated, whichever comes first. If after one (1) year you wish to have your name returned to the ALJ register, you must submit your request in writing to the ALJ email address at: aljapplication@opm.gov. Your request to

7

end your suspension and have your name returned to the register will be accepted as long as the register on which you were placed has not been terminated, and you meet the licensure requirement.

• Non-Availability or Declination of Employment Consideration for Any Reason: As stated in the Geographic Availability section (see below), "If after selecting your geographical location(s) you decline consideration for a geographical location(s) for which you indicated availability, you will be removed from further consideration for that location(s). You will not be able to reinstate a location from which you have been removed until the next ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement open period." If you decline to be considered for any location(s) for which an agency is, at that time, seeking to consider you, you will be removed from further consideration for the location(s). Again, you will not be able to reinstate the location(s) until the next ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement open period.

If you become unavailable for consideration for a period of time, you should request to have your name suspended due to unavailability from the register. Such requests for suspension, as well as requests to end the suspension and have your name restored to the register, must be submitted to aljapplication@opm.gov. Requests to end the suspension and have your name restored to the register will be accepted as long as the register on which you were placed has not been terminated, and you meet the licensure requirement. OPM may extend the expiration date of the register at any time. Prior to the expiration date, applicants on the register will be notified regarding their status and any action impacting their eligibility. If your name is referred for consideration from the register, and you fail to respond to an inquiry from the prospective employing agency, you will be considered unavailable for appointment, and your name will be suspended from the ALJ register due to unavailability until you request to have your name restored to the register as described in the preceding paragraph.

1

Job Title: Administrative Law Judge Examination Job Announcement Number: ALJ2017-847661 ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Social Security Number

Enter your Social Security Number. Providing your Social Security Number is voluntary. We cannot process your application without it, however. The authority for soliciting and verifying your Social Security Number is Executive Order 9397. If you previously provided your Social Security Number when you created your profile in your USAJOBS account, you do not need to submit it again.

Name

First Middle Last

Biographic Data E-Mail Address

The email address that you provide will be your email address of record for OPM notifications relating to the ALJ examination. Only one email address of record is accepted per applicant. Email addresses which end in ".mil" may be problematic when OPM issues notices that contain links. Accordingly, applicants should consider providing a different email instead. OPM is not responsible for an applicant's non-receipt of official notifications due to outdated or inaccurate contact information concerning the applicant (i.e., email address), spam blockers, or other email filters. Citizenship Are you a citizen of the United States?

Lowest Grade The level for this position is AL-3. Veteran Preference Claim

Veterans' Preference Claim Applicants entitled to veterans' preference must submit the appropriate documentation of release or discharge, or expectation of imminent release or discharge, by the closing date of the ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement as described below. Five (5) Point Veterans' Preference: Applicants claiming 5-point veterans' preference, who are no longer in the military service, must submit a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, or other documentation that provides equivalent information on the length and type of service and the character of release or discharge. Applicants who are still in the military service during this ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement's open period may be granted 5-point preference when an official written statement/certification from a branch of the Armed Forces is submitted certifying the service member is expected to be discharged or released

2

from active duty service in the armed forces under honorable conditions within 120 days after submission.

Supporting documentation for 5-point veterans' preference will not be accepted after the closing date of the announcement. Applicants who claimed preference pursuant to a statement/certification that they expect to be discharged or released within 120 days must provide a DD Form 214, or other documentation that provides equivalent information on the length and type of service and the character of release or discharge, to the hiring agency at the time of appointment, to confirm discharge or release and entitlement to veterans' preference. Ten (10) Point Veterans' Preference for Current and Former Service Members: Applicants claiming 10-point veterans' preference on the basis of their own service, who are no longer in the military service, must submit a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, or one of the other forms of documentation of service and separation under honorable conditions that OPM has outlined in the SF-15, Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference, page 2, table A, available at http://www.opm.gov/forms/. This documentation is needed to establish character of service. They must also submit documentation of service-connected disability, as described at page 2, table B or C of the SF-15. Applicants claiming 10-point veterans' preference on the basis of their own service, who are still in the military service during this ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement's open period may be granted preference when a written statement/certification is submitted certifying the service member is expected to be discharged or released from active duty service in the armed forces under honorable conditions within 120 days after submission. In order to obtain the full 10 points, such applicants must also submit documentation of service-connected disability, as described at page 2, table B or C of the SF-15, Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference, available at http://www.opm.gov/forms/. If, during the open period, an applicant claiming 10-point veterans' preference on the basis of his or her own service does not submit documentation of service-connected disability but does submit documentation establishing discharge or release (or imminent discharge or release) and character of service, he or she will be awarded 5-point preference (as described above), based on the documentation submitted, until proof is submitted to support the service-connected disability. Appropriate documentation of service-connected disability may be submitted after the closing date, but must be submitted electronically to aljapplication@opm.gov. Faxed documents or those sent through the postal or other delivery service will not be accepted. Such applicants must provide a DD Form 214, or one of the other forms of documentation of service and separation under honorable conditions that OPM has identified, to the hiring agency at the time of appointment, to confirm separation and entitlement to veterans' preference. Ten (10) Point Veterans' Preference for Spouses, Widows, Widowers, and Parents of Veterans: Applicants claiming 10-point veterans' preference on the basis of being the spouse, widow, widower, or parent of a service member must submit a completed SF-15, Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference, available at http://www.opm.gov/forms/, with the supporting documents specified by the form. For more information on Veterans' Preference, please visit http://www.fedshirevets.gov/.

NOTE: All references to ‘mother' should be read as ‘parent' per Public Law 114-62, the Gold Star Fathers Act of 2015.

When applying, please select the appropriate veterans' preference claim in the "Veteran Preference Claim" section of the application.

3

Dates of Active Duty - Military Service Occupational Specialties 001 Administrative Law Judge Geographic Availability

Please carefully select the geographical locations (i.e., specific city/state and/or county) where you would be willing to accept an appointment as an ALJ by an agency of the Federal Government. The cities contained within counties are posted on the OPM ALJ website. For those geographic locations listed as counties, each county includes all cities that are part of, or within the boundaries of that county. After this ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement closes, you will not be able to change (i.e., add or remove) your selected geographical location(s) until the next ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement open period. OPM may announce additional periods during which candidates already on the register may make changes, at OPM's discretion. NOTE: If you are currently on the ALJ register, you have the option to change your selected geographical location(s) during the job opportunity announcement open period. To change your selection(s), an email stating your request to change your selected locations, must be sent to aljapplication@opm.gov with "2017 GEO CHANGE REQUEST" in the subject line. Such requests will only be honored if they are received during the job opportunity announcement open period. After receiving your email request, you will be sent a form listing all geographical locations for ALJ positions associated with the current examination. You must complete this form and send it back to aljapplication@opm.gov within one week from the date of the email containing the form. Your noted preferences will become your new geographic locations of record and will replace all of your previous selections. Once this announcement closes, you will not be able to submit a request to change your selected geographical location(s) until the next ALJ announcement open period. If, after selecting your geographical location(s), you decline consideration for a specific city/state or county for which you indicated availability, you will be removed from further consideration for that location. You will not be able to reinstate a location from which you have been removed until the next ALJ Job Opportunity Announcement open period. Locations:

020130020 Anchorage, AK 010350073 Birmingham, AL 011200077 Florence, AL 011730089 Huntsville, AL 012100097 Mobile, AL 012130101 Montgomery, AL 051370131 Fort Smith, AR 052320119 Little Rock, AR 040290013 Mesa, AZ 040370013 Phoenix, AZ 040530019 Tucson, AZ 060010001 Alameda, CA 061370019 Fresno, CA 061560001 Hayward, CA 060000029 Kern County, CA 061970037 Long Beach, CA 061980037 Los Angeles, CA 062278065 Moreno Valley, CA

4

062458037 Norwalk, CA 062480001 Oakland, CA 060000059 Orange County, CA 062700037 Pasadena, CA 063110061 Roseville, CA 063150067 Sacramento, CA 063210071 San Bernardino, CA 063260073 San Diego, CA 063290075 San Francisco, CA 063340085 San Jose, CA 063410041 San Rafael, CA 063430083 Santa Barbara, CA 063770077 Stockton, CA 080110005 Aurora, CO 080110001 Aurora, CO 080430041 Colorado Springs, CO 080600031 Denver, CO 081435059 Lakewood, CO 090280003 Hartford, CT 090430009 New Haven, CT 110010001 Washington DC, DC 100130001 Dover, DE 100370003 New Castle, DE 120570103 Clearwater, FL 121050011 Fort Lauderdale, FL 121070071 Fort Myers, FL 121510031 Jacksonville, FL 122010086 Miami, FL 122360095 Orlando, FL 120000099 Palm Beach County, FL 122730103 Saint Petersburg, FL 122940073 Tallahassee, FL 122950057 Tampa, FL 120000127 Volusia County, FL 130120121 Alpharetta, GA 130280089 Atlanta, GA 130280121 Atlanta, GA 130310245 Augusta, GA 131280215 Columbus, GA 131380217 Covington, GA 133390021 Macon, GA 134910051 Savannah, GA 152400003 Honolulu, HI 198980153 West Des Moines, IA 160160001 Boise, ID 171670031 Chicago, IL 172690031 Elgin, IL 172690089 Elgin, IL 172870031 Evanston, IL 176378043 Oak Brook, IL 176610031 Orland Park, IL 176850143 Peoria, IL 181480163 Evansville, IN 181580003 Fort Wayne, IN 182210097 Indianapolis, IN 184960127 Valparaiso, IN 205400177 Topeka, KS

5

205880173 Wichita, KS 211980067 Lexington, KY 212090111 Louisville, KY 212210161 Maysville, KY 212220013 Middlesboro, KY 212520145 Paducah, KY 220040079 Alexandria, LA 220510103 Covington, LA 221545051 Metairie, LA 221690071 New Orleans, LA 222130017 Shreveport, LA 250120025 Boston, MA 250570009 Lawrence, MA 250000017 Middlesex County, MA 251270013 Springfield, MA 240000005 Baltimore County, MD 240000027 Howard County, MD 240000031 Montgomery County, MD 240000033 Prince George's County, MD 236400005 Portland, ME 261210163 Dearborn, MI 261260163 Detroit, MI 261730049 Flint, MI 262010081 Grand Rapids, MI 262700065 Lansing, MI 262850163 Livonia, MI 263410073 Mount Pleasant, MI 263641125 Oak Park, MI 270675053 Bloomington, MN 274760053 Minneapolis, MN 276330123 Saint Paul, MN 291800019 Columbia, MO 291970189 Creve Coeur, MO 294120095 Kansas City, MO 297080510 Saint Louis, MO 297460077 Springfield, MO 281050035 Hattiesburg, MS 281220049 Jackson, MS 282610081 Tupelo, MS 300100111 Billings, MT 370170021 Asheville, NC 370870119 Charlotte, NC 371670051 Fayetteville, NC 371940081 Greensboro, NC 373750183 Raleigh, NC 381020017 Fargo, ND 312830109 Lincoln, NE 313620055 Omaha, NE 330310011 Manchester, NH 340598007 Cherry Hill, NJ 341520017 Jersey City, NJ 342130013 Newark, NJ 342545007 Pennsauken, NJ 350030001 Albuquerque, NM 320110003 Henderson, NV 320120003 Las Vegas, NV 320170031 Reno, NV

6

360050001 Albany, NY 364170005 Bronx, NY 360706009 Brooklyn, NY 360750029 Buffalo, NY 362920103 Islip, NY 362965059 Jericho, NY 364170061 New York, NY 364170081 Queens, NY 365230055 Rochester, NY 366010067 Syracuse, NY 366670119 White Plains, NY 390070153 Akron, OH 391320151 Canton, OH 391610061 Cincinnati, OH 391680035 Cleveland, OH 391800049 Columbus, OH 392090113 Dayton, OH 398120095 Toledo, OH 402930121 McAlester, OK 403550109 Oklahoma City, OK 404780143 Tulsa, OK 410660039 Eugene, OR 411650051 Portland, OR 422545091 Elkins Park, PA 423500043 Harrisburg, PA 424010021 Johnstown, PA 426540101 Philadelphia, PA 426600003 Pittsburgh, PA 427488019 Seven Fields, PA 429340079 Wilkes Barre, PA RQ0650000 Mayaguez, PR RQ0760000 Ponce, PR RQ0930000 San Juan, PR 440190007 Providence, RI 450410019 Charleston, SC 450520079 Columbia, SC 451040045 Greenville, SC 460010013 Aberdeen, SD 462250103 Rapid City, SD 462450099 Sioux Falls, SD 470400065 Chattanooga, TN 470850187 Franklin, TN 471280163 Kingsport, TN 471300093 Knoxville, TN 471620157 Memphis, TN 471760037 Nashville, TN 480260439 Arlington, TX 480330491 Austin, TX 480330453 Austin, TX 481730113 Dallas, TX 482190141 El Paso, TX 482450439 Fort Worth, TX 482570167 Galveston, TX 483030061 Harlingen, TX 483280201 Houston, TX 486090029 San Antonio, TX 491700035 Salt Lake City, UT

7

510040510 Alexandria, VA 510100013 Arlington, VA 510440540 Charlottesville, VA 510000059 Fairfax County, VA 510930610 Falls Church, VA 510000107 Loudoun County, VA 511550683 Manassas, VA 511720700 Newport News, VA 511760710 Norfolk, VA 512060760 Richmond, VA 512100770 Roanoke, VA 512540810 Virginia Beach, VA 530100033 Auburn, WA 530109033 Bellevue, WA 531850005 Richland, WA 531960033 Seattle, WA 532110063 Spokane, WA 532230053 Tacoma, WA 532370011 Vancouver, WA 552780025 Madison, WI 553100079 Milwaukee, WI 540480039 Charleston, WV 541270011 Huntington, WV 541840061 Morgantown, WV 560090025 Casper, WY Employment Availability

Spanish Fluency:

Can you speak and write Spanish at a level equivalent to native proficiency and communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, in Spanish and English in order to translate documents, converse and ask questions with counsel, provide explanations, understand testimony by claimants and conduct hearings in Spanish?

Sole Survivorship Veterans:

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 2108(3)(H), certain veterans discharged or released from a period of active duty from the armed forces by reason of sole survivorship are considered preference eligibles. Under sole survivorship preference, the veteran does not receive veterans' preference points, but is entitled to be listed ahead of non-preference eligibles with the same score; is entitled to receive the same pass-over rights as other preference eligibles during selection; and is entitled to credit experience in the armed forces to meet qualifications requirements. The service member must be released or discharged from the armed forces under honorable conditions, following a qualifying period of service, after August 29, 2008, at the request of the member who is the only surviving child in a family in which the father or mother or one or more siblings (1) served in the armed forces; (2) was killed, died as a result of wounds, accident, or disease, is in a captured or missing in action status, or is permanently 100 percent disabled or hospitalized on a continuing basis (and is not employed gainfully because of the disability or hospitalization); and (3) death, status, or disability did not result from the intentional misconduct or willful neglect of the parent or sibling and was not incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. Applicants claiming sole survivorship must submit a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty documenting both: 1) discharge or release from active duty by reason of sole survivorship, and 2) evidence of qualifying periods of military service for preference, i.e., active duty, under honorable conditions, any part of which occurred during the period beginning September 11, 2001, and ending August 31, 2010, or receipt of a campaign badge or expeditionary medal. In place of a DD Form 214,

8

applicants may submit alternative documentation as described in detail in the section above titled Five (5) Point Veterans' Preference. Applicants seeking sole survivorship preference must respond "Yes" to the following question. Do you claim veterans' preference based on having been released or discharged from a qualifying period of active duty from the armed forces, after August 29, 2008, by reason of sole survivorship?

Miscellaneous Information

Reasonable Accommodation for SJT/Writing Sample/Experience Assessment OPM provides reasonable accommodation for the SJT and Writing Sample to applicants with disabilities, where appropriate, for the purpose of providing equivalent access to the examination process. Accommodations may include such modifications as changes in the presentation format, response format, assessment setting, timing or scheduling. Determinations on requests for accommodation(s) will be made on a case-by-case basis and must be approved prior to starting the SJT and Writing Sample parts of the ALJ examination. If you need an accommodation(s) with the SJT and Writing Sample, please respond "Yes" to the following question. Please note that OPM will not make accommodations with respect to the timing or scheduling of the Experience Assessment because that item is untimed. You will be contacted to obtain additional information and to make special testing arrangements, if appropriate. Do you require an accommodation(s) with the SJT, Writing Sample and or Experience Assessment?

Assessment Questionnaire:

Section 1

1. Do you have a full seven (7) years of experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or reviewing formal hearings or trials involving litigation and/or administrative law at the Federal, State or local level? NOTE: If you fail to respond or if you answer "No" to the questions in this section, or if you do not provide sufficient information to show that you will pass the preliminary qualifications screening, you will be rated as "ineligible." We will not request or accept any additional information and/or clarification beyond what you provide in the following text boxes.

A. Yes B. No

If your answer is "Yes," in order to document that you meet this experience requirement, in the following two text boxes you must fully describe the amount of time spent performing these activities as well as your actual experience in litigation and/or administrative law work. Your response will be evaluated to determine if you pass the preliminary qualifications screening, and the extent to which your responses to this questionnaire show that you possess the competencies, or knowledge, skills and abilities, associated with the ALJ position. When you are describing your experience, it is extremely important that you provide sufficient detail to show that you have completed, in the aggregate, a full seven years of qualifying experience. Therefore, you must quantify the time associated with any claimed experience in terms of the specific dates it was acquired, including the month and year for the start and end dates, such as May 2006-December 2006. Also, if you provide an example of qualifying experience that overlaps with other non-qualifying experience, you must provide the percentage of time spent on each type of work.

9

In the text box below, describe your experience, if applicable, that relates to the "litigation experience" requirements as defined in the "Qualifications Requirements" section. Please pay special attention to the above instructions concerning specificity and detail.

In the text box below, describe your experience, if applicable, that relates to the "administrative law experience" requirements as defined in the "Qualifications Requirements" section. Please pay special attention to the above instructions concerning specificity and detail.

Section 2

2. All ALJ applicants are required to certify that they are duly licensed to practice law as an attorney at the time of filing, under the laws of a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territorial court established under the United States Constitution. Judicial status is acceptable in lieu of "active" status in States that prohibit sitting Judges from maintaining "active" status to practice law. Being in "good standing" is acceptable in lieu of "active" status in States where the licensing authority considers "good standing" as having a current license to practice law. Do you meet these licensure requirements?

A. Yes – As described above, I hereby certify that I am duly licensed to practice law at the time of the filing of this application for employment as an ALJ, under the laws of a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territorial court established under the United States Constitution. B. Yes – As described above, I hereby certify that I am in a judicial status at the time of the filing of this application for employment as an ALJ, and that my licensing jurisdiction prohibits me, as a sitting judge, from maintaining an “active” status to practice law. C. No – As described above, I do not certify that I am duly licensed to practice law at the time of the filing of this application for employment as an ALJ or that I am a sitting judge who is required by my licensing jurisdiction to be in a judicial status.

If you answered "Yes" (item 2.A or 2.B), use the text box below to list: a) all jurisdictions in which you are currently licensed to practice law; b) the date(s) of admission to the Bar in each jurisdiction in which you are currently licensed to practice law; (c) the Bar license number in each jurisdiction in which you are currently licensed to practice law; and (d) if you maintain a bar status other than active, please explain your status, and specify the jurisdiction in which you have this status. If a State in which you are licensed to practice law does not issue a Bar license number, you must clearly state this fact in the text box below and still provide the remaining requested information. An applicant could be deemed ineligible at any time if it is determined that he/she does not satisfy or ceases to satisfy the licensure requirement.

Section 3 3. Reasonable Accommodation for WD/LBM Test/SI OPM provides reasonable accommodation for the Written Demonstration (WD), Logic-Based Measurement Test (LBMT), and Structured Interview (SI) components of the examination to applicants with disabilities, where appropriate, for the purpose of providing equivalent access to the examination process. Accommodations may include such modifications as changes in the presentation format, response format, assessment setting, timing, or scheduling. Determinations on requests for accommodation(s) will be made on a case-by-case basis and must be approved prior to participating in the WD, LBMT and/or SI parts of the ALJ examination. If you need an accommodation(s) with the WD, LBMT and/or SI, please respond "Yes" to the following question. You will be contacted to obtain additional

10

information and to make special testing arrangements, if appropriate. Do you require an accommodation(s) with the WD, LBMT and/or SI?

A. Yes B. No

Section 4 4. Certification of Information Accuracy I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all of the information included in this Assessment Questionnaire is true, correct, and provided in good faith. I understand that if I make an intentional false statement, or commit deception or fraud in this application and its supporting materials, or in any document or interview associated with the examination and appointment process, I may be fined or imprisoned (18 U.S.C. 1001); my eligibilities may be cancelled, I may be denied an appointment, or I may be removed and/or debarred from the Federal service (5 CFR part 731); or I may be disciplined under applicable state law by the authorities responsible for regulating the conduct of attorneys and judges. I understand that any information I give may be investigated. I understand that I will be rated "ineligible" if I do not respond "Yes" to this certification item, or if I fail to respond at all to this certification item.

A. Yes, I certify/understand the information provided above. B. No, I do not certify/understand the information provided above.

10/12/2017 The U.S. Immigration Court System Should Be An Article I Court - Fairness Demands It!

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-U.S.-Immigration-Court-System-Should-Be-An-Article-I-Court---Fairness-Demands-It!&id=8593758 1/5

The U.S. Immigration Court System Should Be An Article ICourt - Fairness Demands It!By Leonard Birdsong | Submitted On June 30, 2014

The immigration courts of the United States are a branch of the United States Department of Justice known as the ExecutiveOffice for Immigration Review (EOIR). They are administrative tribunals devoted to hearing immigration matters, mainlydeportations. The United States maintains fifty-nine immigration courts spread over twenty-seven states of the United States,Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands, staffed by a total of 263 sitting judges.

The Attorney General of the United States is the head of the EOIR and appoints immigration judges to the courts. As I havewritten in previous articles, this method of judicial appointment has always appeared to me to create a conflict of interest. If theAttorney General appoints the immigration judges, can these judges be fair and impartial to asylum seekers when they owe theirjob to the Attorney General? In many cases, I believe the answer is no; they cannot divorce the political pressure they face fromthe Attorney General from the outcome of their asylum cases.

The immigration judges are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General of the United States, the country'schief law enforcement officer. There is no set term limit on the appointment of the immigration judges. In order to avoiddisappointing their boss, the Attorney General, judges may intentionally avoid providing "too many" grants of asylum.Furthermore, because asylum grants are discretionary relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a form of reliefthat grants immigration judges unlimited discretion in deciding asylum cases, only the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) andthe relevant federal circuit have jurisdiction to review.

I believe that our immigration court system should become Article I Courts like the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. TaxCourt. This would make the immigration courts independent of the Department of Justice and immune from possible politicalpressure from the Attorney General. In a 1997 speech Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks, past president of the NationalAssociation of Immigration Judges, advocated for making immigration courts an Article I Court. She stated, in relevant part:

Experience teaches that the review function [of the court] works best when it is well-insulated from the initial adjudicatoryfunction and when it is conducted by decision makers entrusted with the highest degree of independence. Not only isindependence in decision making the hallmark of meaningful and effective review, it is also critical to the reality and theperception of fair and impartial review.

Immigration courts, as they are now situated as part of the EOIR do not provide the kind of judicial independence that is criticalto the perception and reality of the fair and impartial review Judge Marks describes.

10/12/2017 The U.S. Immigration Court System Should Be An Article I Court - Fairness Demands It!

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-U.S.-Immigration-Court-System-Should-Be-An-Article-I-Court---Fairness-Demands-It!&id=8593758 2/5

I will examine herein a few of the proposals put forth over the last thirty-five years to transform the immigration court systeminto an Article I Legislative Court.

Perhaps, someday soon, Congress will revisit this issue of reforming the immigration court system by making it into an Article Icourt.

The History of the Immigration Courts

Our immigration courts are the "trial level" administrative bodies responsible for conducting removal (deportation) hearings-thatis, hearings to determine whether noncitizens may remain in the United States. For asylum seekers with attorneys, such hearingsare conducted like other court hearings, with direct and cross-examination of the asylum seeker, testimony from supportingwitnesses where available, and opening and closing statements by both the government and the respondent. Approximately one-third of asylum seekers in immigration court are not represented by counsel. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor theFederal Rules of Evidence apply in immigration court.

Prior to 1956, "special inquiry officers," who were the predecessors to immigration judges, held hearings only as part of a rangeof immigration duties that included adjudicating deportation proceedings. These officers were retitled "immigration judges" (IJ's)in 1973. Until 1983, immigration courts were part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which was alsoresponsible for enforcement of immigration laws and housed the INS trial attorneys who opposed asylum claims in court. InJanuary of 1983, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) was created, placing the immigration courts in a separateagency within the U.S. Department of Justice. In 2003, when the old INS was abolished and the Department of HomelandSecurity was created, the trial attorneys became part of the new agency, but the immigration courts remained in the Departmentof Justice.

Asylum cases are assigned to immigration courts according to the asylum seekers' geographic residence. The administrators ineach immigration court randomly assign cases to immigration judges to distribute the workload evenly among them and withoutregard to the merits of the case or the strength of defenses to removal that may be asserted by the respondents.

Appointment of Immigration Judges and Qualifications

Immigration judges are attorneys appointed under Schedule A of the excepted service who are managed by EOIR. Schedule A isa civil service designation for an appointed career employee as provided in the Code of Federal Regulations. Three processeshave been used to hire immigration judges: (1) the Attorney General directly appoints the immigration judge, or directs theappointment without a recommendation by EOIR; (2) the immigration judge is appointed after directly responding to anannouncement for an immigration judge and submitting the appropriate documentation; or (3) EOIR identifies a need andvacancies are filled from EOIR personnel or sitting immigration judges who requested and obtained the vacancy. Except fordirect appointment by the Attorney General, to be considered for the position of immigration judge, an applicant must meetcertain minimal qualifications.

The applicant must have a law degree; be duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of a state,territory, or the District of Columbia; be a United States citizen and have a minimum of seven years relevant post-bar admissionlegal experience at the time the application is submitted, with one year experience at the GS-15 level in the federal service.According to EOIR, the DOJ looks for experience in at least three of the following areas: substantial litigation experience,preferably in a high volume context; knowledge of immigration laws and procedure; experience handling complex legal issues;experience conducting administrative hearings; or knowledge of judicial practices and procedures.

ARTICLE I COURT PROPOSALS AND BILLS

Over the last thirty-five years there have been a number of suggestions as to how to remedy the shortcomings of the immigrationcourts as they are now constituted. The first suggestion judges, scholars, and practitioners have made is to take the immigrationcourts out of the Department of Justice and make them an independent court. The immigration courts, situated as they are withinthe Executive Branch, seem to present a blatant conflict of interest. The EOIR is part of a law enforcement agency that overseesthe adjudication of cases of possible immigration law breakers. It is difficult to avoid the perception that immigration judges canbe partial. Because immigration judges are chosen by the Attorney General, and serve at his or her pleasure, they do not have theindependence to truly see that due process and meaningful justice are served.

Unlike Article III judges, immigration court judges do not have life-time tenure. As a matter of fact, there is no term of office foran immigration judge. They serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General and may be removed from the bench by the AttorneyGeneral for any reason whatsoever. My anecdotal experience with the immigration judges has led me to understand that most ofthe judges come from the enforcement side of the immigration service or from other positions within the Department of Justicewhere they may have served between ten and twenty years. Often their appointment as an immigration judge is the crowningachievement of their career where they may serve another ten to twenty years and then retire.

10/12/2017 The U.S. Immigration Court System Should Be An Article I Court - Fairness Demands It!

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-U.S.-Immigration-Court-System-Should-Be-An-Article-I-Court---Fairness-Demands-It!&id=8593758 3/5

The next most cited suggestion for immigration reform is to transform the immigration courts into an Article I Legislative Court."[T]he Supreme Court has recognized Congress' power to create 'legislative courts' under Article I of the [U.S.] Constitution."Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 of the Constitution, Congress may "constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.""Article I Courts may be staffed with judges who lack life tenure because they do not exercise 'core' judicial functions for whichthe federal Constitution requires that judges be insulated from politics." The Court of Veteran's Appeals, the Court of FederalClaims, and the U.S. Tax Court are Article I Courts. Often these courts handle technical and specialty matters beyond the ken ofexpertise of other practitioners and judges. Although the judges on these courts lack life-time tenure, such courts provide amodicum of independence and transparency that is missing from the EOIR based immigration court system.

Maurice A. Roberts in his 1980 article, Proposed: A Specialized Statutory Immigration Court, maintains that decision-makingunder the immigration laws was faulty due, in part, to the frequently conflicting roles of the INS and the immigration courtsystem. He argued that the adjudication of deportation proceedings should be removed from INS, so that the adjudicators couldbe situated in an independent setting where they could decide "cases fairly and promptly, free from dependence" or influencefrom enforcement officials. He proposed that both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the immigration courts betransferred to a new specialized Article I Court.

Roberts's proposed law is simple, consisting of a three-and-one-half-page appendix to his article containing ten succinct sections.Section one provides that the court would be comprised of an appellate division with seven judges and a trial division with fiftyjudges. There would be chief judges for both the appellate division and trial division to be appointed by the President, "with theadvice and consent of the Senate, for terms of fifteen years." The judges of the appellate and the trial divisions would also bechosen by the President, "with the advice and consent of the Senate," and would also serve fifteen-year terms.

Sections two and three, respectively, mandate compensation for judges and procedures for removing judges for incompetency,misconduct, or neglect of duty. Section four mandates that the appellate division "promulgate rules of court governing practiceand procedure" in both the appellate division and in the trial divisions. This would solve the problem of lack of standardprocedures in the immigration courts as they now exist. Section five mandates appellate division administration; Section sixmandates appellate division jurisdiction; Sections seven and eight mandate trial division administration and trial divisionjurisdiction respectively. Section nine is a "savings" provision. This means, that if one section of the court proposal is invalidatedor found to be unconstitutional, then the remainder of the court would remain viable. Section ten discusses and defines "Finality"of decisions in the two courts. In this context a final decision of the appellate division would be binding on all judges of the trialdivision and on all officers of the United States. Such "finality" would also be subject to review only by the "Supreme Court ofthe United States on a petition for certiorari." Unfortunately, the Roberts proposal did not provide that the Article I immigrationjudges be granted the authority to sanction lawyers or respondents for contempt of court. All judges of every court should begranted contempt power to ensure efficient operation of the court and prevent frivolous or disruptive behavior by lawyers orapplicants.

Roberts's proposal is simple but anachronistic. This proposal was written just before the Refugee Act of 1980 took effect. It wasthis 1980 Act that made it necessary for the then existing INS to start holding asylum trials. There was then an increase inimmigration court hearings once respondents were allowed to seek asylum from persecution. Today the idea of an immigrationtrial division with only fifty judges is laughable and unimaginably small-but this was a good start. Some thirty years later wehave 263 immigration judges sitting in fifty-nine trial division courts. The proposal, if passed by Congress, would have made theimmigration courts more independent and, perhaps, fairer. The proposal, though a good one, gained no traction and wentnowhere.

In the late 1990s there were actually three bills put forth in Congress by Representative Bill McCollum to establish the UnitedStates Immigration Court as an Article I Court. All three of the bills were similar and each was referred to the House Committeeon the Judiciary. Each of the bills died in committee and never became law. Nevertheless, I will summarize the basics of the1998 bill, which represents what Representative McCollum proposed in each bill for an Article I Immigration Court.

In 1998, in the 105th Congress, the bill H.R. 4107 was drafted and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The bill wouldhave established an Article I Immigration Court consisting of an immigration trial court and an appellate division. The appellatecourt would consist of a chief judge and eight other judges appointed by the President "with advice and consent of the Senate."They would serve terms of fifteen years. The appellate judges would sit and hear cases as a panel of three judges to decideappeals.

The trial division would "be composed of a chief immigration trial judge and other immigration trial judges (IJ's), appointed bythe Chief Immigration Appeals Judges." The bill further provided that all immigration judges serving at the time of enactment ofthe bill would be appointed Article I Judges by the Chief Immigration Judge. Such trial judges would serve fifteen-year termsand could be removed for cause, including "incompetency, misconduct, or neglect of duty." Judges of each division of the courtwould have the power to punish lawyers or respondents for contempt of court, either by fine or imprisonment. The McCollumbill makes it easier than the Roberts proposal to remove judges from the immigration court, but the bill would also confer

10/12/2017 The U.S. Immigration Court System Should Be An Article I Court - Fairness Demands It!

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-U.S.-Immigration-Court-System-Should-Be-An-Article-I-Court---Fairness-Demands-It!&id=8593758 4/5

contempt power on the trial and appellate judges. This would allow judges to sanction disruptive or frivolous behavior bylawyers and applicants.

The bill clearly articulated the authority of the trial and appellate judges. Section 115 provides that "[t]he appellate division shallpromulgate rules of court... governing... the appellate division and trial division." The section provides further that, "only suchselected provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as the appellate division deemsappropriate for inclusion in the rules of the Immigration Court shall apply to proceedings in Immigration Court." The bill alsospells out rules for retirement. The bill also limits judicial appeals. The current system allows a respondent who loses an appealin the BIA to appeal the decision to the federal circuit court in the district where the immigration court is situated. RepresentativeMcCollum's H.R. 4107 would limit appeals of such cases only to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that sits inWashington, D.C. These are the crucial provisions of the bill.

It appears that Representative McCollum may have used Roberts' proposal for an Article I Court as a blueprint and thenexpanded upon it. The two basic differences between the Roberts proposal and the McCollum bill is that, first, H.R. 4107 wouldconfer contempt sanctioning power on both appellate and trial judges of the Article I Immigration Court. Second, the Robertsproposal made the decisions of the new appellate court final, but they would be subject to review by the Supreme Court on apetition for certiorari. H.R. 4107 would make the final review after the appellate division only to the Federal Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit. This sounds unworkable, for there is only one Federal Court for the Federal Circuit which is inWashington, D.C., and it is unlikely that this one court could handle all of the appeals of asylum cases which are now spread outover eleven federal circuit courts.

Although it was not a proposal made in either a law review article like Roberts's or a bill like Representative McCollum's, theNational Association of Immigration Judges advocated for an independent immigration court in a January 2002 position paper.The Association favored the creation of an Article I Court. In their position paper they cite the work of Maurice Roberts. Theposition paper argued that an independent immigration court would promote more efficiency, accountability, and impartiality inthe workings of the immigration courts.

Unfortunately, we still have no Article I Immigration Court independent of the Department of Justice. Some argue that there maybe no political will in Congress to appropriate the type of money to transform the immigration judiciary into an independentArticle I Court. However, such argument may be without merit. It already costs millions of dollars to maintain the EOIR withinthe Justice Department. However, the EOIR is not really in the Justice Department building on Pennsylvania Avenue inWashington, D.C.; it is housed in a separate facility in Arlington, Virginia. If such a change was made it would not be muchmore expensive than the status quo, since the change would be more formalistic than substantive. The same structure that is inthe existing courts, judges and staff would remain in existence but under a different name and under standardized rules andprocedures promulgated and put in place. The headquarters of the new court could even remain in the EOIR's present facilities inArlington.

Also going forward, pursuant to the McCollum bills, the Chief Appellate Judge and the eight other appellate judges would bechosen by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The chief judge of the trial division andthe trial division judges would be chosen by the chief appellate judge. It appears that there could be an almost seamless transitionfrom the EOIR to the Article I Court for little more money than is now used to fund the courts as part of the Department ofJustice.

I have examined herein proposals of what an Article I Immigration Court system could look like. A two division court-anappellate division and a trial division-where the chief judge of the appellate division and eight other appellate judges would beappointed by the President of the United States and with the consent of Congress, would sit for a fifteen-year term. The chief ofthe appellate division would appoint the chief judge of the trial division and the trial judges who would also sit for fifteen-yearterms, on good behavior. The structure is already in place. It would not necessarily be much more costly to run such an Article IImmigration Court than it is to pay the costs of operating the immigration courts as part of the EOIR.

I believe that an independent Article I Immigration Court would be better for asylum seekers because a court free of oversight bythe Attorney General would offer better independence and impartiality for asylum seekers.

Yet, there seems to be no political will from Congress to create such a court. Nor does it appear that the United States AttorneyGeneral is anxious to relinquish his oversight of the immigration courts. It is the author's hope that this article might convinceCongress to consider Article I Court proposals that have been put forth over the last thirty years.

Due process for asylum seekers demands that there be fairness and impartiality in an independent immigration court. An ArticleI Immigration Court promulgated by an act of Congress would provide for such a fair and impartial court.

Leonard Birdsong is a 3-time professor-of-the-year at Barry University School of Law and former U.S. State Departmentdiplomat with assignments in Nigeria, Germany and the Bahamas. He worked as a federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. and

10/12/2017 The U.S. Immigration Court System Should Be An Article I Court - Fairness Demands It!

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-U.S.-Immigration-Court-System-Should-Be-An-Article-I-Court---Fairness-Demands-It!&id=8593758 5/5

private practice in Washington, D.C. specializing in trial work in both criminal matters and asylum cases. He also provides legalcommentary on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. He also appears as a legal commentator on CBS radio and Fox radio news.Professor Birdsong is the author of several books comprising the Weird Criminal Law series and can be reached viahttp://www.BirdsongsLaw.com, lbirdsong@barry.edu or at LeonardBirdsong.com.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/expert/Leonard_Birdsong/1900688

© 2017 EzineArticles All Rights Reserved Worldwide

https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/480275400#

Announcement number

IJ-10045466-17-TW

Control number 480275400

OverviewOpen & closing dates

09/25/2017 to 10/16/2017

Salary $144,042 to $172,100 per year

Pay scale & grade GS 00Work schedule Full-Time

Appointment type Permanent

Locations 19 vacancies in the following locations:

• San Francisco, CA 1 vacancyMiami, FL 2 vacancies

Stewart County, GA1 vacancy

Chicago, IL2 vacancies

Jena, LA 5 vacancies

Bloomington, MN 1 vacancy

Otero County, NM 3 vacancies

Cleveland, OH 1 vacancy

El Paso, TX 1 vacancy

Pearsall, TX 1 vacancy

Port Isabel, TX 1 vacancy

Responsibilities Immigration Judges preside in formal, quasi-judicial hearings. Proceedings before Immigration Judges include but are not limited to deportation, exclusion, removal, rescission, and bond. Immigration Judges make decisions which are final unless formally appealed. In connection with these proceedings, Immigration Judges exercise certain discretionary powers as provided by law, and are required to exercise independent judgment in reaching final decisions. Immigration Judges may be required to conduct hearings in penal institutions and other remote locations.

Requirements Conditions of Employment

• You must be a U.S. Citizen or National. • You must undergo a pre-employment security investigation. • Selective Service Registration is required, as applicable. • Moving and Relocation Expense are not authorized. • Relevant experience (see qualifications below.)

In addition to the minimum qualifications above, applicants must submit a writing sample which demonstrates their ability to author legal documents (not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages) and a document addressing the Quality Ranking Factors (See "How You Will Be Evaluated" section) in order to be considered for this position. Failure to submit these documents will result in your application being removed from consideration. Qualifications In order to qualify for the Immigration Judge position, applicants must meet all of the minimum qualifications listed below. Education: Applicants must possess a LL.B., LL.M, or a J.D. degree. -AND- Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of a U.S. state, territory, Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia (include the date of your admission to the bar). -AND- Experience: Applicants must have a full seven (7) years of experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or appealing formal hearings or trials involving litigation and/or administrative law at the Federal, State or local level. Qualifying litigation experience involves cases in which a complaint was

filed with a court, or a charging document (e.g., indictment or information) was issued by a court, a grand jury, or appropriate military authority. Qualifying administrative law experience involves cases in which a formal procedure was initiated by a governmental administrative body.

IN DESCRIBING YOUR EXPERIENCE, PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC. WE MAY NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING YOUR EXPERIENCE

Additional information

Employment is contingent upon the completion and satisfactory adjudication of a background investigation. Selectee(s) must be able to maintain a top secret clearance. There is no formal rating system for applying veterans' preference to attorney appointments in the excepted service;

Conditions of Employment: Only U.S. Citizens or Nationals are eligible for employment with the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

How You Will Be Evaluated

You will be evaluated for this job based on how well you meet the qualifications above. Applicants meeting the minimum requirements will be further evaluated to determine those who are best qualified. This determination will be based, in part, on the following quality ranking factors (QRF's):

1. Ability to demonstrate the appropriate temperament to serve as ajudge.

2. Knowledge of immigration laws and procedures.3. Substantial litigation experience, preferably in a high volume

context.4. Experience handling complex legal issues.5. Experience conducting administrative hearings.6. Knowledge of judicial practices and procedures.

Applicants are required to address QRF #1 and a minimum of three (3) of the remaining five (5) factors in narrative form. The QRFs must be addressed on a separate document which indicates the number of the specific QRF you are addressing. Applicants should be thorough in addressing the QRFs. For example, applicants addressing QRF #3 (substantial litigation experience) should discuss the approximate number of cases handled in a given period of time, the applicant's

specific role (first chair, co-counsel, responsible for the written brief only, etc.), and the length of time involved in a given role (lead counsel in 20 jury trials In 10 years). Applicants should also include specific examples of the types of cases, the number of court appearances made in those cases, and the case dispositions (plea, settlement, bench trial, Jury trial, etc.) Conclusory statements (such as "the applicant has been involved in a substantial amount of litigation") will receive little or no weight in the evaluation of the QRFs.

Required Documents 1. Resume documenting 7 years of legal experience post baradmission (include specific dates employed and if work was performed on a part-time or full-time basis). 2. Documents addressing the Quality Ranking Factors (QRFs).There is additional information regarding the QRFs under the "How You Will Be Evaluated" section. 3. Writing Sample which demonstrates your ability to author legaldocuments (one (1) only, and not to exceed 25 pages).

NOTE: Failure to submit the documents above with your application package will result in your application package being removed from consideration.

• Current or former government employees must provide copies oftheir most recent performance appraisal and their latest SF-50,Notification of Personnel Action.

• Documentation supporting eligibility for a special appointingauthority (eligible veterans, disabled, etc.) Although the pointsystem is not used, per se, if claiming 5-point veterans'preference, include a Form DD-214 or correspondence from theVeterans' Administration. For applicants claiming 10-pointveterans' preference, a Form SF-15, VA or military letter dated1991 or later, and Form DD-214 must be submitted. Forapplicants claiming disability, include documentation fromlicensed medical professionals, state or private vocationalrehabilitation specialist, or any other government agency thatissues or provides disability benefits.

If you are relying on your education to meet qualification requirements:

Education must be accredited by an accrediting institution recognized by the U.S. Department of Education in order for it to be credited towards qualifications. Therefore, provide only the attendance and/or

degrees from schools accredited by accrediting institutions recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.

Failure to provide all of the required information as stated in this vacancy announcement may result in an ineligible rating or may affect the overall rating.

How to Apply You must submit a complete application package by 11:59 PM (EST) on the closing date of the announcement.

• To begin, click Apply Online to create a USAJOBS account or login to your existing account. Follow the prompts to select yourUSAJOBS resume and/or other supporting documents andcomplete the occupational questionnaire.

• Click the Submit My Answers button to submit your applicationpackage.

• It is your responsibility to ensure your responses and appropriatedocumentation is submitted prior to the closing date.

• To verify your application is complete, log into your USAJOBSaccount, https://my.usajobs.gov/Account/Login , select theApplication Status link and then select the more information linkfor this position. The Details page will display the status of yourapplication, the documentation received and processed, and anycorrespondence the agency has sent related to this application.Your uploaded documents may take several hours to clear thevirus scan process.

• To return to an incomplete application, log into your USAJOBSaccount and click Update Application in the vacancyannouncement. You must re-select your resume and/or otherdocuments from your USAJOBS account or your application willbe incomplete.

Immigration

Immigration judges sayproposed quotas from JusticeDept. threaten independence

By Maria Sacchetti  October 12

The Trump administration is taking steps to impose “numeric performance standards” on federal immigration judges,

drawing a sharp rebuke from judges who say production quotas or similar measures will threaten judicial independence, as

well as their ability to decide life-or-death deportation cases.

The White House says it aims to reduce an “enormous” backlog of 600,000 cases, triple the number in 2009, that cripples its

ability to deport immigrants as President Trump mandated in January.

The National Association of Immigration Judges called the move unprecedented and says it will be the “death knell for judicial

independence” in courts where immigrants such as political dissidents, women fleeing violence and children plead their cases

to stay in the United States.

“That is a huge, huge, huge encroachment on judicial independence,” said Dana Leigh Marks, spokeswoman and former

president of the association and a judge for more than 30 years. “It’s trying to turn immigration judges into assembly-line

workers.”

The White House tucked its proposal — a six-word statement saying it wants to “establish performance metrics for

immigration judges” — into a broader package of immigration reforms it rolled out Sunday night.

But other documents obtained by The Washington Post show that the Justice Department “intends to implement numeric

performance standards to evaluate Judge performance.”

The Justice Department, which runs the courts through the Executive Office for Immigration Review, declined to comment or

otherwise provide details about the numeric standards.

The Justice Department has expressed concern about the backlog and discouraged judges from letting cases drag on too long,

though it has insisted that they decide the cases fairly and follow due process. On Thursday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions

expressed concern that false asylum cases are clogging up the courts.

The judges’ union says its current contract language prevents the government from rating them based on the number of cases

they complete or the time it takes to decide them.

But now, they say, the department is trying to rescind that language, and advocates say it could violate a federal regulation

that requires judges to “exercise their independent judgment and discretion” when deciding cases.

Advocates and immigration lawyers say imposing numerical expectations on judges unfairly faults them for the massive

backlog. Successive administrations have expanded immigration enforcement without giving the courts enough money or

judges to decide cases in a timely way, they say. An average case for a non-detained immigrant can drag on for more than two

years, though some last much longer.

“Immigration judges should have one goal and that goal should be the fair adjudication of cases,” said Heidi Altman, director

of policy at the National Immigrant Justice Center, a nonprofit that provides legal services and advocacy to immigrants

nationwide. “That’s the only metric that should count.”

Immigration lawyers say the proposed standards risk adding to disadvantages immigrants already face in immigration courts.

Most defendants do not speak English as their first language if at all, are not entitled to lawyers at the government’s expense,

and thousands end up trying to defend themselves.

Often immigrants are jailed and given hearings in remote locations, such as rural Georgia or Upstate New York, which makes

it difficult to gather records and witnesses needed to bring a case.

“People’s lives are at risk in immigration court cases, and to force judges to complete cases under a rapid time frame is going

to undermine the ability of those judges to make careful, well thought-out decisions,” said Gregory Chen, director of

government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which has 15,000 members.

Traditional federal judges are not subject to quotas.

The rare public dispute between the immigration judges and the Justice Department comes as the Trump administration is

demanding a commitment to increased enforcement and other immigration restrictions in exchange for legal status for

690,000 young undocumented immigrants who, until recently, were protected from deportation under an Obama-era

program. Sessions announced the end of the program last month, and the young immigrants will start to lose their work

permits and other protections in March.

In January, Trump issued a slate of executive orders that sought to crack down on immigration. He revoked President Barack

Obama’s limits on enforcement and effectively exposed all 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States to arrest.

On Sunday, Trump also called for more immigration-enforcement lawyers and more detention beds, which would further

increase the caseloads of the courts.

He is also planning to seek congressional funding for an additional 370 immigration judges, which would more than double

the current number.

Immigration arrests are up more than 40 percent since Trump took office, and deportation orders are also rising. From Feb. 1

to August 31, judges have issued 88,383 rulings, and in the majority of cases — 69,160 — immigrants were deported or

ordered to voluntarily leave the country, a 36 percent increase over the corresponding period in 2016.

The immigration courts have clamored for greater independence from the Justice Department for years and also have sought

greater control over their budget. They have long complained about a lack of funding, burnout rates that rival that of prison

wardens, and caseloads exceeding 2,000 each. Some judges are scheduling cases into 2022.

On Sunday, Sessions — who appoints the immigration judges and is the court’s highest authority — called the White House’s

broad immigration proposals “reasonable.”

“If followed, it will produce an immigration system with integrity and one in which we can take pride,” he said.

Maria Sacchetti is the Post immigration reporter. She previously reported for The Boston Globe. 

) Follow @mariasacchetti